Talk:C&C 37/40/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In progress. This is an article topic I'm less familiar with, so apologies for what I assume will take me a bit longer (and you've already had this in the queue quite a while.) I hope to have a full review up early next week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Overall, I think there's a lot of solid work here. I've gone through and made a bunch of changes, with others that remain and I wanted to discuss.

• Prose:
  • In general, I think there's just too much information here, in absolute volume, and in how it's presented. I stripped out a lot of info from the lead because detailed data about design specifications and factory options just aren't something that should be in the introduction unless they're essential to reader understanding.
  • On that note, the infobox seems absolutely too large, especially since it interferes with the body copy for a significant portion on variable screen sizes. The point of the infobox isn't to put absolutely every detail in there, but to give a useful high-level pertinent details. For example, instead of giving weight as (37/40+) 17,500 lb (7,938 kg), (37/40XL) 16,500 lb (7,484 kg), (37/40R) 14,900 lb (6,759 kg) you could just say Between 14,900 lb (6,759 kg) and 17,500 lb (7,938 kg. I frankly don't give a damn about the precise dimensions of rigs and sails, but if you're going to keep this stuff you could at least condense it instead of bombarding readers with three measurements for every single aspect of the yacht. We're a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a sailing technical manual.
  • The lead is supposed to be an introduction, but not a replacement for clarification in the article itself. The body copy does not link or explain C&C or who Robert W. Ball is, for instance.

• • There's a lot of material throughout that's not cited (I've tagged a few with {{cn}} tags) or not fully tagged (e.g. The construction of the C&C 37/40 was ahead of its time... paragraph seems to cover the construction materials, but the statement that the construction of the 37/40 was ahead of its time itself cannot be appropriately cited to the owner's manual.
  • Example text—it's not clear what "I" is or why this is being given as an equation instead of "the standard rig has a 52-ft (16 min) I; the..." or similar construction.
  • If there's only a sentence or two in a subhead, that's probably a good sign that subheading is unnecessary (e.g. "Design and Construction Drawings".)
  • Some jargon isn't explained or even wikilinked, for example "settees", "staving", and ""
  • The C&C 37/40 is a recreational keelboat of moderate displacement, intended as a cruiser/racer or oceangoing racer (depending on model). This line feels like it's better placed in the introduction than a single line before talking about the variants.
  • Another example, the C&C 37R Creola, is still actively campaigned, This feels like it needs an additional citation that it's still being raced.
  • The "In the media" section should either be external links or more actively incorporated into the article.
  • There's a basic lack of a lot of critical commentary about the boat. There's some comments on its racing performance, but what were its sales like versus expectations? How was it received at the time? How is it regarded today? It doesn't feel like the full coverage of this subject exists in the article as it currently stands.
  • Throughout there's a lot of peacock language that really needs to be cited or toned down. Who says that the ship's accommodations are "spacious"? What is it being compared to?
• Images:
  • Is File:C&c 37-40+.jpg wholly your own work or was it copied from some other source?
• References:
  • I'm not sure some of the references used meet reliability standards. There's a link to a forum post on SailingAnarchy, for example, which is generally not an acceptable source unless in WP:SPS cases. What makes SailingJoy reliable? SailingData? cncphotoalbum.com? SailQuest? Etc.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd best get busy with this. Thank you for all your suggestions, I'll have a go at making all the suggested changes and improvements. Ken Heaton (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ken Heaton:: Any update on progress for this article? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ken Heaton​ - Any updates on the progress of this article to meet GA status? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I would say without a response in a few days, this nom should be failed David Fuchs. It's been one month since the nominator has edited the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

All, I am going to go ahead and fail this as an abandoned nomination. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)